G.R. No. 116602-03 - Sarao vs. Court of Appeals

Carmelita Sarao, the petitioner, was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, with:

Violation of B.P. No. 22 for issuing an undated check that was later dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Estafa under par. 1 (b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly misappropriating pieces of jewelry or the proceeds from their sale.

The check-related charge stemmed from the dishonored Philbanking Check No. 148526, initially issued as partial payment.
The estafa charge was based on the agreement for a commission sale of jewelry, which was allegedly not honored as Sarao was accused of converting the proceeds for her own use.

In early April 1986, petitioner Carmelita Sarao met private respondent Kim del Pilar in a jewelry shop, where both parties agreed to transact jewelry sales on a commission basis.
Subsequent meetings and agreements led to:

Two earlier transactions executed in the same period.
A critical third transaction on 12 May 1986 in which respondent Kim del Pilar entrusted a set of eight jewelry pieces (owned by Azucena Enriquez and valued at ₱301,500.00) to Sarao for sale on commission.

In return for the jewelry, petitioner delivered to respondent del Pilar a title (TCT No. 90915) covering a parcel of land in Las Piñas.

The jewelry items were sold to a third party, Victoria Vallarta, who issued two checks amounting to ₱214,000.00 for the transaction.
When these checks were presented for payment, they were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
As partial settlement of her obligation, petitioner issued the undated Philbanking Check No. 148526 in the amount of ₱214,000.00, which was likewise dishonored.
Despite receipt of notice of dishonor, petitioner failed to settle her obligation under the arrangement.
Respondent del Pilar was compelled to pay the amount due to Azucena Enriquez, thereby incurring further losses.

After the prosecution rested its case, petitioner moved to dismiss the estafa charge, arguing that:

There was no conclusive finding that she was acting as a commission agent; rather, she claimed she had purchased the jewelry from respondent del Pilar.
The absence of evidence of misappropriation or conversion should preclude her criminal liability for estafa.

On 22 January 1990, the trial court, noting the lack of evidence for misappropriation, dismissed the estafa charge.
However, regarding the issue of the dishonored check under B.P. No. 22, the trial court found that:

The petitioner’s act of issuing an undated check, which was later dated by arrangement with the witness, confirmed her acknowledgment of insufficient funds.
This acknowledgment made her liable for the financial loss incurred by respondent del Pilar.

The trial court consequently awarded civil liability to respondent del Pilar for the recovered amount, along with legal interest from 10 September 1987 until full payment.

Petitioner sought reconsideration on the basis that her obligation should be contingent upon the collection of proceeds from the buyer, Vallarta, claiming that she had also made several advance payments on other dates.
On 10 July 1990, the motion for reconsideration was denied, with the court emphasizing that:

Her obligation to respondent del Pilar was immediate and not subject to the receipt of funds from Vallarta.
The alleged advance payments were argued to pertain to separate transactions.

The Court of Appeals, on 24 February 1994, affirmed the trial court's ruling, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court when petitioner’s petition was denied.

Enriquez testified that respondent Kim del Pilar had provided her with a check worth ₱214,000.00 as partial payment for the jewelry sale.
She confirmed that the drawer of the check was Carmelita Sarao.
Critically, when the check was provided in the first week of June 1986, it was undated.
Upon contact, petitioner instructed Enriquez to date the check as of 15 June 1986, acknowledging that funds were not available at that moment.

This testimony supported the contention that petitioner recognized her inability to honor the check immediately, thereby rendering her obligation due and demandable.

Whether the issuance of an undated check by petitioner Carmelita Sarao, which was later dated by instruction, imposes criminal liability under B.P. No. 22 despite the alleged agreement that it would be encashed only upon receipt of payment from the buyer.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the estafa charge based on the allegation of misappropriation or conversion of jewelry or proceeds thereof.
Whether the obligation of petitioner to turn over the proceeds from the sale of the jewelry to respondent Kim del Pilar was already due and demandable at the time the check was presented for payment.
Whether the prior agreement between petitioner and respondent regarding the encashment of the check, contingent upon receipt of funds from the third-party buyer, can exempt petitioner from immediate liability.